Bernie's In

@georgeob1,

Law enforcement and diplomats briefed on the investigation have said she was not the target. This fact was reported in August. As for the President, perhaps he knows more than you, probably was briefed at the same as law enforcements and diplomats. So as of right now she is not the target. Even if she was hacked, she still broke no laws since she was allowed to have a private email server. The pentagon was hacked, or the people that had classified information going to be indicted because someone hacked into their files? Moreover, at the time the emails were either sent or received they were not classified, they became so in the review of them later.

2 Replies

@revelette2,

I don't believe in backdoor prosecutions.

0 Replies

while searching for info about senatorial speaking fee limits for another thread (found it - the limit is $0.00 for sitting senators) , found this odd/interesting little tidbit

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bernie-sanders-regular-luxurious-dscc-fundraising-retreats

___

I think it's official now. I may have come around to djjd's way of thinking about politicians. Kinda hate them all.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Urrrgh!

2 Replies

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

Law enforcement and diplomats briefed on the investigation have said she was not the target. This fact was reported in August. As for the President, perhaps he knows more than you, probably was briefed at the same as law enforcements and diplomats. So as of right now she is not the target. Even if she was hacked, she still broke no laws since she was allowed to have a private email server. The pentagon was hacked, or the people that had classified information going to be indicted because someone hacked into their files? Moreover, at the time the emails were either sent or received they were not classified, they became so in the review of them later.

I accept your assertion that unnamed law enforcement and diplomatic officials may have said Hillary wasn't the target, but I don't know what value that statement has, given the ambiguities involved. More significant is the fact that it is the stated Justice department policy not to comment on such questions - to neither confirm nor deny anything until indictments are issued or the investigation, or inquiry if you prefer, is closed. So anyone who addressed the issue was acting on his/her own and motivated by matters of which know nothing. This limits my confidence in your evident conclusion that Hillary will certainly not become a target of the investigation.

I am, however, more persuaded by the President's unusual statement that no national security risks have followed Hillary's actions. Given the widespread hacking of even fairly secure government data systems and those of corporations around the world, I can't conceive of any certainty on the proposition that Hillary's server was not hacked by multiple foreign agents. That said, the President's statement, the evident slow walking of the releases of information, and the high political stakes involved, all suggest that the objective merits of the case may not be all that important in determining the outcome.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

Me think that's a bit like the "dirt" they threw at the ex-mayor: smaaal stuff.

From Beth's link:

Quote:

During his 2006 Senate race, Sanders received at least $7,500 directly from lobbyists with ties to the financial industry, including JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Visa, as well some energy companies like the American Petroleum Institute.

Weaver dismissed the $7,500 as nothing compared to the $44.1 million he said Clinton has received from donors tied to the financial industry over her entire career. “The truth of the money of the matter is that $7,500 is about equal to 30 seconds of her speech to eBay,” Weaver said of the reported $315,000 Clinton made on a speech to the online auction giant last year.

1 Reply

This is enormous for the Bern.

Ta-nehisi Coates endorses the Bern.

http://www.nytimes.com/live/new-hampshire-primary-2016-election/a-prominent-bernie-sanders-critic-ta-nehisi-coates-is-now-a-fan/?smid=tw-share

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

the concern isn't the $

5 Replies

@ehBeth,

The concern is that this is PEANUTS compared to corrupt Hillary Clinton sucking in millions for "speeches."

___________________________________________
excerpt--
Bill Clinton said this week that he “practically fell out of my chair” when he read reports that Sanders had attended the DSCC’s summer donor retreats on Martha’s Vineyard, and Hillary Clinton said Sanders took Wall Street cash “not directly, but through the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.”
The Sanders campaign fired back by calling the charge “disturbing,” “dishonest” and “beyond preposterous,” noting the DSCC also receives small donations and is hardly exclusively funded by Wall Street.
__________________________________________
Since Bernie's one of the very few not on the take in DC and wanted to avail himself of one of the legitimate perks, a weekend at a nice place, that comes with the job - it is almost hysterically laughable that any pin-headed cretin would try to act like this is anything but a desperate Clinton subterfuge. Yeah, Clinton almost fell out of his chair...

And.

Ain't workin. But, it really cuts deeply into the credibility of anyone who repeats it.

Deeply.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

Having read more closely, I'll un-urrrgh.
And I still knew two actually sincere politicians, maybe three, back in the day, so I'm not a politician hater as a starter. More of a doubter par excellence.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

What is the concern?

Hillary took direct money from Wall Street firms in the form of speaking fees, and continues to take money in her Super PAC.

This charge is that Bernie worked with the DSCC to raise money?

This is a dodge on the part of the Hillary campaign to a real issue about her current campaign is being financed. This is a false equivalence.

0 Replies

Best reason to vote for Bernie. Impeccably pedigreed article.
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/09/hillary_clintons_progressive_problem_the_real_policy_differences_between_her_and_bernie_sanders_can_actually_be_quantified/

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

This is campaign mudsliding and that's all there is to it. There's no real concern here, only a bluff from the Clinton team. Don't fall for it.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

I agree, it is hypocrisy to talk about ties to financial institutions when he has ties as well. Just because it isn't a log, it is still a speck.

2 Replies

@revelette2,

True enough. However a speck is a hell of a lot smnaller and less dangerous than a very large and very mature giant log.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

We can get silly with this, but think about this, whether someone is a habitual liar or lies occasionally when they need to, both are liars.

Not to mention, I thought you were a republican? I don't know a republican politician who does not have ties to financial institutions or would think it wrong if they did.

1 Reply

by way of JoeNation on FB

http://www.shakesville.com/2016/01/what-is-bernie-sanders-even-doing.html

expresses my feelings about the midterms and downticket candidates so very well

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

the concern isn't the $

turns out I was wrong

0 Replies

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

I agree, it is hypocrisy to talk about ties to financial institutions when he has ties as well. Just because it isn't a log, it is still a speck.

Let's talk facts for a second. What ties does Sanders have with banks, exactly?

0 Replies

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/voter-turnout-challenges-sanders-recipe-success?cid=eml_mra_20160210

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know